RIVER BED RIGHTS

Sun (Auckland), Volume IV, Issue 973, 16 May 1930, Page 11

RIVER BED RIGHTS

CONTROL OF GRAVEL SUPPLIES COUNTY COUNCIL V. CROWN Pi-ess Association PALMERSTON N., Thursday. A case of importance to county councils and other local bodies was heard in the Supreme Court today, when the Chief Justice. Sir Michael Myers, was asked to decide whether a local body, the Pahiatua County Council, had the last say whether gravel could be removed from the bed of a river where it ran through land owned by the Crown. - The bed of the river in the case, the Makuri River, where it flows through the Makuri township, is vested in the Crown, but it is wholly inside the Pahiatua County. Outside the township the river bed is vested in private riparian owners. The Akitio County is five miles away at the nearest point and, unfortunately, has a very limited supply of gravel for roads. The Pahiatua Council has been taking gravel out of the river at the township for many years, without any licence from the Crown. Two or three years ago the Akitio Council began to do the same. The Pahiatua Council objected and also took for its own use gravel in a dump which Akitio County workmen had taken out of the stream. In 1927 an agreement was reached by which Pahiatua was to supply Akitio with a certain quantity of metal, but nothing was done. The Akitio Council again began to take gravel from the river bed, and the Pahiatua Council secured an ex parte injunction, which the Akitio County Council tried to have rescinded. Mr. Justice Ostler, however, left the matter as it stood, pending an inquiry into the question of the rights of the Crown as owner. The Crown subsequently gave the Akitio Council the right, under licence, to take gravel. The question before the Court today was whether the Pahiatua Council could still prevent the Akitio Council from taking gravel, in ’spite of the licence issued by the Crown.

His Plonour said the subject was of such importance that he must take time to consider it. He thought he would consult with Mr. Justice Ostler first, on the question whether the Crown should be joined in the case. He said that perhaps the simplest way would have been to take the question before the Court of Appeal.

Counsel said the Akitio Council did not desire to embark upon more litigation than was necessary, and if it could get what it wanted through the present action an appeal would not be necessary. The matter might be of general importance to others, but the Akitio Council was only concerned with getting gravel.

His Honour said he agreed with the comment by Mr. Justice Ostler, in his judgment, that it was a pity the county councils concerned could not have come together and reached an agreement in an endeavour to conserve the ratepayers’ money. He also wondered why the County Councils’ Association had not taken up the question.